The paper prepared for Mitt Romney's major address in Michigan today with a brutal editorial about the role he played in getting Obamacare passed.

The editorial goes through the ways that Romney has defended the plan and how that praise has lately been qualified, but nonspecific. The Journal points out how the arguments Romney used -- on, for example, the individual mandate -- are identical to those being used by Obamacare advocates.

We learn just how that experiment in Massachusetts has failed. While the uninsured rate has dropped to two percent from 6 percent at implementation, four out of five of those newly insured receive low- or no-cost coverage from the state. The subsides, which will reach $830 million this year, are growing at 5.1% a year. Total state spending on health care as a percentage of the budget is now 40%, well above the state average of 25%. And so on. The Romney camp says it was an implementation problem, not a problem of design.

The Journal repeatedly points out that this is a failure of philosophy over anything else. His failure to understand this "reveals a troubling failure of political understanding and principle." The debate isn't over specifics but the role of government.

And then the piece gets even more brutal:

In reality, his ostensible liberal allies like the late Ted Kennedy saw an opening to advance their own priorities, and in Mr. Romney they took advantage of a politician who still doesn't seem to understand how government works. It's no accident that RomneyCare's most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks. They know what happened, even if he doesn't.

For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw. Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on "data." Mr. Romney's highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.

More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.

It's hard for me to see how Romney gets past this. If Romney's lost businessmen and Wall Street, what's his base?

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Apparently, he's quite popular with French women.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

 I thought Romney should have gotten the nod last time.  I don't see it as anything but a remote possibility this time, now that Obamacare is out there.  He's also in the unlucky position of being the early frontrunner, with some glaring flaws that are easy to attack.

Based on Nate Silver's analysis, he has roughly a 25% chance.  Throw him out of consideration, and you can make money betting on every other candidate in the field, practically risk-free.  The only risk is that he picks up momentum with a big win in New Hampshire, but it's far from certain he wins there.

Racing Form blurb: Vulnerable favorite, looking elsewhere.

iWc
Joined
Mar '11
iWc

I hope, none.

Romeny and Gingrich both suffer from the same conceit: belief that they are smart enough to do invasive government right.

raycon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

iWc: I hope, none.

Romeny and Gingrich both suffer from the same conceit: belief that they are smart enough to do invasive government right. · May 12 at 6:34am

Romney's natural constituency is the RINO vote, better called the party faithful, or in the old days, the Rockefeller Republicans.  The same crowd who want to be liked, need strokes from the MSM, and otherwise still believe in "big government done right"  Their mirror image is the "socialism done right" crowd.

McCain, Dole, GHWB, the lot.  Even GW followed that belief.

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville
Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on "data." 

I think I know what the WSJ was trying to say here, but I'm not sure this is the best way to say it.

Presidents do need to observe and respect the data. If their principles aren't working, and the data reveals that, then they need to change. After all, that's much of the problem with the current Obama administration. The data is plainly showing (in fact, shouting) that Obama's plans aren't working. To doggedly stick with a failing ideology is not leadership. It just shows stubbornness, or more likely, this is the only tune that Obama knows how to play. 

Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen
It's hard for me to see how Romney gets past this. If Romney's lost businessmen and Wall Street, what's his base? ·

Mollie,

I wouldn't equate the WSJ board with businessmen, they aren't necessarily the same thing.  Aren't these the same chaps (WSJ) who advocated open borders since it would provide cheap labor?

The reason everyone is dog-piling on Romney right now is because he is the early frontrunner and there is NO OTHER possible Republican candidate without significant drawbacks.  If there were people would be talking them up instead of tearing Romney down.

Keep searching for the next Reagan, even though he couldn't significantly shrink the federal government (see Depts of Education and Energy).  Conservatives should be more realistic and less desparate...

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Romney reminds me of Richard Nixon; a Republican with no particular set of guiding principles.  A self-advancing pragmatist who, once in office, will find it more convenient to compromise than to stand up to brickbats from Democrats and the media.

Nixon gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act and perpetual growth in minority set-asides and affirmative action.  Not because he believed in any of that.  Because he didn't really believe in anything. 

Edited on May 12, 2011 at 8:02am
TeeJaw
Joined
Nov '10
Ducatista

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

It's hard for me to see how Romney gets past this. 

Me neither, unless Republicans really like being the stupid party.

Matthew Gilley
Joined
May '10
Matthew Gilley

I cast my primary vote for Romney in '08 and will not do so again, absent something truly remarkable.  Over the last four years he went from legitimate presidential timber to an excellent choice for Secretary of the Treasury.  Anyone want to join me in backing Herman Cain for Secretary of Commerce? 

raycon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

Actually, Herman Cain for Michelle Bachman's Vice Presidential pick and Sarah Palin for Energy Secretary.

Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen

Kenneth: Romney reminds me of Richard Nixon; a Republican with no particular set of guiding principles.  A self-advancing pragmatist who, once in office, will find it more convenient to compromise than to stand up to brickbats from Democrats and the media.

You are wrong my friend.  Romney is a man of his word and will make good on his campaign promises.  You may disagree with those promises, which is fine, but he will follow through on them.

Has Romney changed positions over the years?  Sure - all politicians do.  Is he the most ideologically pure conservative in the race?  No.  But to compare Mitt to Nixon does a grave disservice to Romney's character and his impressive accomplishments.

Politicians do change their stripes from times to time - even Reagan "evolved" on some issues.  If you feel that Romney's changes are too much of a kaleidoscope for you to deal with than so be it but I can assure you those changes are genuine.

Nixon was corrupt and deeply dishonest - Mitt's not even close to that.  I think Trump would be a much better comparison for someone like Nixon.

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

Frozen Chosen

Kenneth: Romney reminds me of Richard Nixon; a Republican with no particular set of guiding principles.  A self-advancing pragmatist who, once in office, will find it more convenient to compromise than to stand up to brickbats from Democrats and the media.

Nixon was corrupt and deeply dishonest - Mitt's not even close to that.  I think Trump would be a much better comparison for someone like Nixon. · May 12 at 9:00am

I didn't imply that Mitt is corrupt or dishonest, just that he, like Nixon, seems to be
untethered by principle.  

Edited on May 12, 2011 at 9:13am
Kofola
Joined
May '10
Kofola

Frozen Chosen

The reason everyone is dog-piling on Romney right now is because he is the early frontrunner and there is NO OTHER possible Republican candidate without significant drawbacks.  If there were people would be talking them up instead of tearing Romney down.

Oh come on now...people are 'dog-piling' (as if he's the only candidate getting scrutiny) on Romney because they don't like him as a candidate. The lack of legitimate alternatives at the moment should be helping Romney. Yet, he's doing very little to make me, and many others, feel inclined to separate him from the rest of the trash heap.

Frozen Chosen

Keep searching for the next Reagan, even though he couldn't significantly shrink the federal government (see Depts of Education and Energy).  Conservatives should be more realistic and less desparate...

Ok, I get it now. I have reservations about Romney just because I'm a naive idealist who can't learn how to settle. If only I could learn that limited government is unrealistic (even Reagan couldn't do it!), I'd embrace Romney! Ummm...yeah, keep trying to convince me in this way....

Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen

Kofola

 
 

Ok, I get it now. I have reservations about Romney just because I'm a naive idealist who can't learn how to settle. If only I could learn that limited government is unrealistic (even Reagan couldn't do it!), I'd embrace Romney! Ummm...yeah, keep trying to convince me in this way.... · May 12 at 9:37am

Given the current state of our electorate, I believe that shrinking or limiting the federal government is unrealistic.  All we can really hope for is to slow the rate of growth because grow it does -  constantly, relentlessly, consistently.  The staus quo and the past 50 years are all the proof I need to support my thesis.

Unless and until the federal government is limited or reduced in a significant way my position on this matter stands unchallenged.  You may legitimately feel that Romney is not the guy to slow the growth but if you think you are going to elect a Republican president who is going to slash and burn the size of the federal goverment than yes, sir, you are a naive idealist...

raycon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

Frozen Chosen

Kofola

 
 

Ok, I get it now. I have reservations about Romney just because I'm a naive idealist who can't learn how to settle. If only I could learn that limited government is unrealistic (even Reagan couldn't do it!), I'd embrace Romney! Ummm...yeah, keep trying to convince me in this way.... · May 12 at 9:37am

Given the current state of our electorate, I believe that shrinking or limiting the federal government is unrealistic...  Unless and until the federal government is limited or reduced in a significant way my position on this matter stands unchallenged.   

Which is it?  Chicken first or egg first?  We must demand a lot, even if we only get half of it.  Or we can demand very little, and get all of it. 

You appear to have surrendered even before you know who will be on the battlefield.

Kofola
Joined
May '10
Kofola

Frozen Chosen

Given the current state of our electorate, I believe that shrinking or limiting the federal government is unrealistic. · May 12 at 12:21pm

Therefore, we should just give up the ghost and surrender....ok....

Frozen Chosen

You may legitimately feel that Romney is not the guy to slow the growth but if you think you are going to elect a Republican president who is going to slash and burn the size of the federal goverment than yes, sir, you are a naive idealist... · May 12 at 12:21pm

Well, no, I don't believe that necessarily, but that's beside the point. Your argument was that since no candidate will be able to entirely shrink the government to the appropriate levels we should just accept Romney. Why? Because he'd best manage decline? By that logic, I just shouldn't vote at all, because it's pointless. Alternatively, I could prioritize other issues, none of which lead me to Romney as a first choice. I'm sorry, but this method of persuasion just isn't working for me.

Vance Richards
Joined
Sep '10
Vance Richards

Replace Biden? But I thought, "Nobody messes with Joe."


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In